G.R. No. 210759, G.R. No. 211403 & G.R. No. 211590, June 23, 2015
CHAIRPERSON SIEGFRED B. MISON, in his capacity as Chairperson of Bureau of Immigration and Deportation, Petitioner, vs. HON. PAULINO Q. GALLEGOS, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court-Manila, Branch 47 and JA HOON KU, Respondents. (Consolidated Cases)

FACTS

On December 23, 2013, the Interpol of Seoul, Republic of Korea requested assistance for the location and deportation of respondent Ja Hoon Ku (Ku) for allegedly misusing company funds. The Korean Embassy subsequently requested the Bureau of Immigration (BI), chaired by petitioner Siegfred Mison, for Ku’s immediate arrest and deportation as an undesirable alien. Ku’s visa expired on January 1, 2014. On January 3, 2014, the BI charged Ku for being a risk to public interest. The BI Board of Commissioners issued a Summary Deportation Order on January 16, 2014. On the same day, BI officers, with police assistance, arrested and detained Ku. The Republic of Korea voided Ku’s passport on January 17, 2014.
On January 17, 2014, Ku filed a Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Amparo, which was supplemented on January 22, 2014. Respondent Judge Paulino Gallegos issued the Writ of Amparo. Ku also filed a Motion for a Temporary Protection Order (TPO). On January 28, 2014, Judge Gallegos granted the TPO, entrusting Ku’s custody to the Philippine National Red Cross and directing the PNP to protect him and his family. On January 29, 2014, the judge ordered the transfer of Ku’s custody and protection to the PNP-PSPG. Petitioner Mison challenged these orders via a Petition for Certiorari (G.R. No. 210759). The Supreme Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order on February 4, 2014, enjoining the enforcement of the RTC orders and directing the BI to retain custody of Ku.
During a hearing on February 11, 2014, petitioner moved for the dismissal of the amparo petition. Judge Gallegos denied the motion on February 18, 2014, prompting another Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition (G.R. No. 211403). Meanwhile, on February 25, 2014, Ku filed an appeal memorandum on his deportation order with the Office of the President (OP). On March 14, 2014, Judge Gallegos issued a Resolution granting the privilege of the writ of amparo, ordering Ku’s immediate release from BI custody and directing the petitioner to cease violating Ku’s right to liberty. The Supreme Court issued another TRO on March 18, 2014, enjoining the RTC from enforcing its February 18 Order and from further proceeding with the case. The OP granted Ku provisional liberty until August 31, 2014, or until resolution of his appeal. Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari (G.R. No. 211590) assailing the March 14, 2014 Resolution.

ISSUE

The central issue is whether the privilege of the writ of amparo was properly granted in this case.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court ruled that the privilege of the writ of amparo was improperly granted.
The writ of amparo is a remedy available for violations or threats to the right to life, liberty, and security, and it specifically covers extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof. The Amparo Rule was promulgated to address the prevalence of extralegal killings and enforced disappearances. “Enforced disappearances” are defined with reference to Republic Act No. 9851, requiring: (a) an arrest, detention, abduction, or deprivation of liberty; (b) carried out by, or with the authorization, support, or acquiescence of, the State or a political organization; (c) followed by a refusal to acknowledge or give information on the fate or whereabouts of the person; and (d) an intention to remove the person from the protection of the law for a prolonged period.
The Court found that Ku’s circumstances did not constitute an enforced disappearance. He was arrested by BI agents pursuant to a Summary Deportation Order. There was no refusal by the BI to acknowledge the arrest or to give information on his whereabouts. The BI agents testified that upon arrest, they presented the Warrant of Deportation to Ku and informed him of his constitutional rights and his visa expiration. There was no attempt to conceal Ku or to remove him from the protection of the law. His detention was under a valid legal process in relation to deportation proceedings. Therefore, the petition for a writ of amparo was not the proper remedy to question the legality of his detention. The grant of the writ by the respondent judge was erroneous.